Bill 60: Faster But Not Smarter? An Overview of Ontario’s Latest Planning Legislation

To listen to an audio recording of this article, click here.

Introduction

Ontario’s latest omnibus bill, Bill 60, Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 (“Bill 60”) aims to speed up planning approvals across the Province of Ontario (the “Province”). But faster doesn’t always mean smarter, and the changes will have wide-reaching impacts for municipalities, developers and landowners.

In our May 2025 newsletter, we summarized the Province’s most recent municipally focused omnibus bill (Bill 17, Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025), noting the Province’s preference for using words like “Protect,” “Faster” and “Smarter” to describe what its suite of legislative changes were intended to accomplish. Six months later, we are reviewing yet another omnibus bill (Bill 60), whose title gives further insight into the mindset of the Ford government.

Bill 60’s message is clear – when it comes to facilitating planning approvals and getting shovels in the ground, the Province needs stakeholders to move even faster. The legislature is fully prepared to exempt and, if needed, unilaterally approve projects to get Ontario building homes, facilities, infrastructure, transit and job-generating uses at a greater pace and within a shorter time frame. Bill 60’s legislative changes are intended to facilitate (and motivate) developers, builders, landowners and municipal authorities into action.

We do note that two words present in the Province’s title for Bill 17 – “Protect” and “Smarter” – are conspicuously absent from Bill 60’s title. As will be described in our latest summary below, certain “protections” are being retooled or removed, likely based on the perception that they have been the cause of “delays” in achieving the Province’s stated goal of building 1.5-million new homes by 2031 in an effort to improve affordability. As for whether Bill 60 is “Smarter,” that determination will need to be made in retrospect. Bill 60 only received royal assent on November 27, 2025, with certain of its changes held back for future proclamation. As was the case with Bill 17, it will be important for all stakeholders to keep track of what currently applies, what will apply and what may never be applied.

Bill 60 consists of 16 Schedules that amend the Planning Act, the Development Charges Act, 1997 (“DCA”), the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”) and the Municipal Act, which are the focus of our review. Our summary also discusses three related Environmental Registry of Ontario (“ERO”) postings that propose to reshape the way land use planning, construction and protection operate within the Province. The pace of legislative change moves faster than its implementation, so as always we encourage readers of this summary to contact members of our Municipal & Land Use Planning Group to discuss questions and individual circumstances.

Planning Act

Bill 60 amends the Planning Act by generally expanding Ministerial authority, extending the concept of “as-of-right” variances, delegating to local authorities the ability to approve land use-related official plan amendments within designated Protected Major Transit Station Areas (“PMTSAs”) and allowing upper-tier municipalities to adopt Community Improvement Plans.

Minister Decisions Need Not Be Consistent With Provincial Policy

Bill 60 introduces amendments to the Planning Act aimed at enabling the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the “Minister”) to act more decisively and with greater autonomy.

Pursuant to subsection 3(5), all decisions of a municipality, ministry or board/commission/ agency of either, including the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), in respect of the exercise of any authority affecting a planning matter, must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and any other policy statement or provincial plan in effect on the date of the decision. Bill 60 introduces an exception to this general rule that allows the Minister to make decisions that are not required to be consistent with provincially issued policy statements. Interestingly, this exception is specifically given retroactive effect, meaning that prior decisions of the Minister are also deemed to have not been required to be consistent with provincial policy statements.

As the concept of a “decision… in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter” is quite broad, the change appears to exempt various types of Ministerial decisions and orders, including the approval of municipal official plans (where the Minister is the approval authority) and the issuance of Ministerial Zoning Orders (“MZOs”). The lone exception is Ministerial decision-making that applies to land within the Greenbelt Area, where the Minister’s decisions must still be consistent with provincial policies, including the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement and the Greenbelt Plan.

It remains to be seen how the Minister intends to utilize this new exception – specifically whether the Minister will now show a willingness to step in on local or area-specific decision-making where an issue of consistency with provincial policy is inherent. An increase in Ministerial involvement in local decision-making, especially where the Minister’s policy exception is sought to be relied upon, could significantly impact local authorities. Applicants seeking new development approvals may start to line up at Queen’s Park as opposed to their local municipal counters.

Status and Implementation of MZOs

Bill 60 adds new subsections to section 47 of the Planning Act that alter the implementation of MZOs by reducing consultation requirements and speeding up the delivery of development agreements.

For anyone that frequents Ontario’s e-laws website, a frustrating trend that has developed over the last four to five years is the way in which MZOs dominate the list of approved Regulations under the Planning Act. Anyone in search of a specific Regulation dealing with various prescribed requirements under the Planning Act must first swim through an ocean of posted MZOs before they can identify their desired Regulation. This is because MZOs, at law, are Regulations and are correctly posted and displayed along with other Planning Act Regulations.

To the relief of planning lawyers and law students, subsections 47(1.0.0.1) and 47(1.0.0.2) will now exempt MZOs from the filing requirements under Part III of the Legislation Act, 2006. MZOs will instead be published on a separate government website (47(1.0.0.3)). Corresponding amendments to section 17 of the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994 and to subsection 80.1(2) of the Legislation Act, 2006 are also made. The lone caveat is that the new exemption does not extend to Ministerial Orders that amend or revoke pre-existing MZOs.

Under section 47, the Minister has authority to require that landowners and municipalities that are subject to an MZO enter into one or more agreements. To expedite the finalization and execution of these agreements:

• Subsection 47(4.3.1) will allow a municipality to delegate its authority to enter into site plan and/or inclusionary zoning agreements, thereby eliminating the need for a council decision before an agreement can be signed;
• Subparagraph 47(4.6)(c) will allow the Minister to specify timelines for entering into required agreements and for resolving matters within those agreements, thereby ensuring that development agreements do not stall;
• Subsection 47(4.9.1) will now empower the Minister to issue orders either: (a) deeming terms or conditions of a development agreement to be satisfied or of no force and effect, or (b) requiring the landowner or municipality to make a motion for directions to the OLT to resolve a dispute, with the OLT’s decision being final and not subject to appeal or review.

These changes generally reflect an intention to reduce MZO implementation delays by empowering the Minister to set deadlines, intervene and resolve disputes where a delay is attributable to an impasse reached between a landowner and a municipality. The broad authority to deem conditions satisfied, or to compel a decision at the OLT, is a departure from the current procedures and may raise concerns for landowners and municipalities seeking to protect their interests notwithstanding an MZO.

Expansion of ‘As-of-Right’ Variances

Through Bill 17, the Province introduced a limited “as-of-right” variance permission specific to minimum setback distances. Pursuant to subsection 34(1.4) and O. Reg. 257/25, landowners are permitted to vary a parcel boundary setback requirement by up to 10% without the need to apply for a minor variance. Put another way, the lawful minimum setback distance to any parcel boundary is now 90% of what the relevant municipal zoning by-law prescribes.

Bill 60 expands this flexibility by broadening the scope of as-of-right variance permissions. Pursuant to subsection 34(1.3.1), the Province will create (by Regulation) a list of prescribed minimum standards that, if imposed by a zoning by-law, may be unilaterally reduced by the landowner by up to the “prescribed percentage” without a minor variance. Subsection 34(1.3.3) creates a similar as-of-right authority for landowners to increase prescribed maximum standards imposed by a zoning by-law.

The ability to rely upon these as-of-right variances permissions is limited only to parcels of urban residential land. Subsection 34(1.5) is also modified to continue to restrict the availability of as-of-right variances from Greenbelt Area lands, non-urban parcels and lands that are within 300 metres of railroads or 120 metres of conservation authority-regulated lands.

The expansion of as-of-right variances aims to provide flexibility to zoning by-law standards, allowing applicants to go straight to building permit and reducing the demands on the Committee of Adjustment. Whether or not as-of-right minor variances will work in implementation will likely depend on which zoning standards get captured in the Province’s forthcoming prescribed lists, enforcement at the municipal level and the nature of certain applications. It will also be interesting to see how the existence of a provincially accepted as-of-right variance percentage affects how Committees of Adjustment (and appellant bodies) assess variance proposals that do require approval. What is or is not a “minor” variance may be redefined by these new as-of-right provisions.

For those curious about transition, subsection 34(1.5.1) establishes that zoning standards are fixed according to the date when the building permit is issued or when lawful use is established.

Community Improvement Plans (“CIP”): Revived Authority for Upper-Tier Municipalities

A “community improvement project area” is an identified area within a municipality – the improvement of which has been identified by the local council as “desirable because of age, dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement, unsuitability of buildings or for any other environmental, social or community economic development reason.” When lands are designated by by-law as a CIP area, certain additional municipal authorities become available, such as the acquisition and clearance of land or the construction, repair or disposal of buildings on the land, all in service of the council-adopted CIP.

Previously, the ability to pass by-laws to create CIP areas was limited to lower and single-tier municipalities as well as certain prescribed upper-tier municipalities. Bill 60 amends section 28 of the Planning Act to fully authorize upper-tier municipalities to both designate CIP areas and adopt CIPs.

This change corrects what was likely an unintended consequence of the removal of planning responsibilities from certain upper-tier municipalities. Various upper-tier municipal authorities lost their ability to create and administer CIPs when their respective official plans were no longer in effect. New subsection 28(14) indicates that CIPs previously passed by upper-tier municipalities without planning responsibilities are revived as of the date of Bill 60’s enactment.

Streamlined Amendments Within PMTSAs

As most stakeholders are aware, the creation of a new PMTSA requires Ministerial approval before the new permissions, requirements, policies and land use maps that will govern the PMTSA come into effect. Ministerial approval is also required if the relevant local municipality wants to amend any of the three key features of a PMTSA: the prescribed minimum number of residents and jobs per hectare, the minimum densities to be achieved within the designated area and the area’s authorized land uses.

While Ministerial approval will still be required for the creation of, and amendments to, a designated PMTSA, Bill 60 does remove the requirement for Ministerial approval where a proposed PMTSA amendment meets the following criteria: (a) the only policies being amended or revoked relate to the authorized land uses within the PMTSA, and (b) residential uses continue to be authorized on all lands within the relevant PMTSA.

Allowing local municipalities to render final approval decisions on permitted land uses within PMTSAs allows for greater speed and flexibility when implementing development projects. Eliminating a layer of approval bureaucracy, even in a narrow circumstance, shows trust in local stakeholders and encourages parties to resolve land use changes without the need for direct Ministerial oversight.

All Bill 60 amendments to the Planning Act came into effect on royal assent.

Environmental Registry of Ontario Consultations

In addition to the above-noted changes to the Planning Act, the Province has posted three consultations on the ERO seeking feedback on proposed changes.

ERO 025-1101: Consultation on Enhanced Development Standards – Lot Level (outside of buildings)

This consultation requests input on the future use of Enhanced Development Standards (“EDS”) at the lot level outside of a building envelope. Sometimes referred to as “green development standards,” EDS are not limited to environmental features and can encompass a broader range of municipal requirements imposed through zoning by-laws, site plan control and development agreements. EDS may include requirements for features such as bioswales, permeable pavement, vegetative elements, native tree planting, soil volume requirements and bicycle parking, among other matters.

The specific consultation on the municipal use of EDS requirements follows the Province’s prior proclamation/confirmation that municipal authorities are not empowered to impose environmental or “green” building standards that exceed the Ontario Building Code. The Province is now consulting on whether (and how) to extend this prohibition to lot-level requirements imposed through the Planning Act approval process, citing concerns that EDS vary widely across jurisdictions.

The consultation poses questions about current municipal practices, consistency of application, cost implications and which standards (if any) should be permitted in order to maintain health and safety. Legislative amendments and/or regulatory requirements arising out of this consultation will have direct impacts on land development throughout Ontario, not just in respect of the cost of development but also the tools available to local communities to do their part to manage the effects of climate change.

ERO 025-1100: Consultation on Minimum Lot Sizes

This consultation focuses on minimum lot size requirements imposed upon urban residential lands and their effects on housing options, affordability and homeownership access. The consultation is specific to minimum lot size requirements imposed on lands that have (or will have) access to municipal water and wastewater services.

The background information provided includes reference to an analysis of minimum lot sizes across Ontario, as well as an international review of the connections between lot size, affordability and housing options. In Ontario, the Province found that minimum lot sizes for single-detached dwellings generally range from 270 to 800 square metres (approximately 2,900 to 8,600 square feet), with minimum frontages ranging from six to 20 metres. The referenced research shows that jurisdictions around the world that have reduced or removed minimum lot size requirements have generally experienced increased housing construction, improved affordability and more inclusive urban development. It is asserted that this has been accomplished without significantly changing neighbourhood character.

A shift away from prescriptive minimum lot size requirements in urban areas could have a transformative effect on low-density residential planning by potentially facilitating the creation of smaller lots through severances that would allow for more starter-sized homes. While this type of change speaks to the goals of the Province and anti-sprawl advocates, the change also holds the potential of drastically remaking the layout and density of existing neighbourhoods, which is often the rallying cry of NIMBY homeowners and their chosen representatives. The change may also require a recalibration in the way population and land need projections are calculated for purposes of decision-making associated with proposed urban area expansions.

ERO 025-1099: Consultation on Simplifying and Standardizing Official Plans

Based on concerns that official plans have become lengthy, complicated and highly restrictive planning documents that take multiple years to prepare and update, are difficult to understand and comply with and vary widely between municipalities, this consultation requests feedback on how official plans could be simplified and standardized, removing development-specific standards properly found in zoning by-laws, and eliminating secondary and area-specific plans in order to reduce the layers upon layers of policies, mapping, restrictions and directions being used by municipal authorities to guide communities.

The proposed changes include:

• Standardized Structure and Contents: Official plans would be required to follow a prescribed chapter order with mandatory titles, including sections on Indigenous Engagement, Settlement Area Structure, Natural Heritage, Infrastructure and Implementation. Standardized schedules and data sets would be required, including schedules for Land Use Designations, Transportation Corridors, Natural Heritage Systems and Agricultural Systems.
• Limiting Development Standards: The proposal contemplates limiting the inclusion of development standards (e.g., building heights, lot sizes, density), instead requiring existing development standards currently in official plans to be incorporated into local zoning by-laws.
• Page or Word Limits: The Province is considering imposing limits on official plan length, such as a 250-page maximum or a 65,000-word limit. This represents a significant reduction from current practice, where some municipal official plans currently exceed 600 pages.
• Permissive Land Use Designations: The proposal includes standardizing land use designations across Ontario and making them more permissive. Suggested designations include Residential, Mixed Use, Employment Areas, Major Facilities, Greenfield, Open Space and Extractive. Each designation would permit a broad range of uses, reducing the need for site and/or project-specific amendments.
• Prohibiting Secondary Plans: The consultation contemplates potentially prohibiting secondary plans or site-specific policies, requiring official plans to be “a singular, comprehensive document for the entire municipality.”
• Transition Framework: Various transition approaches are under consideration, including requiring updates at the next five- or 10-year review, setting a deadline (e.g., two years from framework implementation) or establishing different timelines for large/fast-growing municipalities versus smaller/rural municipalities.
• Digital Submission: The Province is proposing to allow submission of official plan materials through an online portal rather than traditional methods.

While standardization could reduce complexity and improve consistency, stakeholders should carefully consider the implications for local autonomy, community-specific planning needs and the flexibility to address unique geographic, environmental or growth contexts. The prohibition of secondary plans in particular may be controversial, as these tools have been widely used to provide detailed policy direction for complex growth areas and major redevelopment sites. While the format of official plans can be improved, these important policy documents express fundamental local objectives and have evolved through public processes that include years of public and stakeholder confirmation as well as expert evidence tested by a myriad of administrative appeals.

Development Charges

Schedule 3 of Bill 60 builds upon the development charge (“DC”) modernization framework introduced by Bill 17. The stated aim of the amendments is to standardize DC calculations, reduce disputes and enhance transparency while addressing concerns about land cost inflation and local service definitions.

Land Acquisition Class and Cost Controls

A significant change is the introduction of a separate “land acquisition class” for DCs in respect of charges for capital costs to acquire an interest in land, including a leasehold interest. New section 5.3 of the DCA establishes special rules for this class to determine the need for service, while new subsection 7(3.1) requires that DC by-laws imposing charges for land acquisition services to provide for a class consisting only of those costs. The exception is for capital costs related to the Toronto-York and Yonge North subway extensions, which are not required to be included in a separate land acquisition class.

Additional flexibility has been added to section 35 of the DCA, which now permits municipalities to spend money from reserve funds established for a service to cover land acquisition capital costs for that service in certain circumstances.

Local Service Policies: Formalizing Definitions and Reducing Disputes

Section 59 of the DCA provides that a municipality may require a landowner to construct local services as a condition of subdivision approval or consent approval.

Bill 60 introduces a new (mandatory) scheme to better define the scope of local services in subsection 59(2.5). Municipalities are now required to adopt local service policies for each service referred to in subsection 2(4). The content of these local service policies is governed by new subsections 59(2.3) and 59(2.4). At a minimum, policies must identify works or classes of works related to development that are intended to be local services. Policies may, but are not required to, identify works or classes of works that are not intended to be local services or specify that only certain parts of works are intended to be local services. These local service policies must be reviewed regularly, in conjunction with the municipality’s DC review process.

In terms of transition, subsection 59(2.5) takes effect on the earlier of: (a) 18 months after Bill 60 received royal assent, which is May 2027, or (b) the day the municipality establishes the required policy.

Ministerial Oversight and Information Sharing

Councils are required to provide copies of DC background studies and DC by-laws to the Minister upon request, by the deadline specified. This new requirement also extends to local services policies.

Amendments to subsection 43 formalize and accelerate the timing for annual DC financial statements. Subsection 43(1) requires treasurers to provide statements to council by June 30 of each year. Subsection 43(3) is amended to require treasurers to provide copies to the Minister no later than July 15 of the year in which the statement was provided to council.

All amendments to the DCA introduced through Bill 60 came into effect on royal assent.

An Aside on Bill 17 Amendments – DC Deferrals Now in Effect

On October 30, 2025, the Province issued Order in Council 1373/2025, which brought into force the remaining amendments to the DCA that had been introduced through Bill 17 as of November 3, 2025.

The coming into force of these amendments is notable as they allow for the deferral of DCs for non-residential developments to the earlier of the date an occupancy permit is issued and the date the development is first occupied. Previously, DCs were payable upon building permit issuance. Additionally, as of November 3, 2025, municipalities are no longer permitted to charge interest on DC deferral amounts, except to the extent that interest had accrued prior to that date.

In order to provide a clear “trigger” for the payment of deferred DCs for non-residential development, the Ontario Building Code has been amended to provide for occupancy permits for non-residential buildings.

Residential Tenancies Act

Schedule 12 of Bill 60 proposes several changes to the RTA that are described below.

Notice Forms and Standardization

Section 43(1) establishes the general rule that where a landlord or tenant give a notice of termination, the notice must be in a form approved by the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”). Bill 60 proposes to clarify that if a form is prescribed by Regulation, the prescribed form must be used.

Landlord’s Own Use

Bill 60 amends the compensation requirements where a landlord serves a tenant with a notice of termination for personal use under section 48(1). Typically, where such a notice is served, the landlord is required to compensate a tenant in an amount equal to one month’s rent or offer the tenant another rental unit acceptable to the tenant.

New section 48.1(2) states that after this section of Bill 60 comes into force, the compensation requirement would not apply if the date for termination specified in the notice is at least 120 days after the notice is given and the date for termination is at the end of the period of tenancy or end of the fixed term. This change, if enacted, would therefore eliminate the compensation requirement for the majority of termination notices for a landlord’s personal use.

Non-Payment of Rent

Bill 60 clarifies what constitutes “persistent failure to pay rent.” Under section 59(1) of the RTA, a landlord may give a tenant notice of termination if the tenant has persistently failed to pay rent on the date it becomes due and payable.

The term “persistent failure” has always carried an element of subjectivity and discretion applied by the Board. Bill 60 introduces new subsection 58(1.1), which states that “what constitutes a persistent failure to pay rent on the date it becomes due and payable shall be determined in accordance with the regulations.” Similar changes are made to section 94.2 which deals with termination of occupancy in co-operative housing.

Tenant Issues at Eviction Hearings

Section 77(8)(b) is amended to create another regulation-making authority dealing with circumstances where a tenant brings a motion to set aside an agreement to terminate a tenancy. Under subsection 77(6) of the RTA, a tenant may bring an ex-parte motion to set aside an order to terminate a tenancy where that order is based on an agreement to terminate a tenancy. Section 77(8) sets out the Board’s jurisdiction on such a motion.

Prior to the change, subsection Section 77(8)(b) states that the Board shall “make an order setting aside the order… if the Board is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it would not be unfair to do so.” Bill 60 proposes to repeal the language of “would not be unfair to do so” and replace it with language that states: “if the prescribed circumstances, conditions or tests have been satisfied.” This amendment, like that described above for subsection 58(1.1), also appears intended to remove an element of subjectivity and discretion applied by the Board.

Section 82(1) previously provided that at a hearing commenced by the landlord for an order terminating a tenancy, a tenant may raise any issue that could be the subject of a tenant application. For example, where a landlord brings an application to terminate a tenancy based on rent arrears, a tenant may raise maintenance issues as a form of “defence.” Bill 60 introduces a new requirement that a tenant who wishes to raise such an issue must pay half of any rent arrears that were claimed in the application when it was filed, either to the Board or to the landlord, prior to the hearing.

Prior to Bill 60, Section 83(1) provided that upon an application for an order evicting a tenant, the Board may order that the enforcement of the eviction order be postponed for a period of time. Section 83(1) is amended to provide that the power of the Board under clause 83(1)(b) is subject to any prescribed limitations and conditions.

Section 209 provided a fairly open-ended right to seek a review of a Board decision, stating that “the Board’s power to review a decision or order under that section may be exercised if a party to a proceeding was not reasonably able to participate in the proceeding.” Section 209(2) is repealed and substituted with a limit that the power of the Board to review a decision “is subject to any prescribed limitations or conditions” and a new time limit of 15 days is imposed, unless it is “just and appropriate in the circumstances to extend the time to request the review.”

Municipal Infrastructure in Peel Region

Schedule 7 proposes amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001 to transfer jurisdiction over water and sewage public utilities from The Regional Municipality of Peel to its lower-tier municipalities.

Transfer of Water and Wastewater Jurisdiction

New section 77 “Transfer of jurisdiction re The Regional Municipality of Peel” is added immediately after the heading “Public Utilities.” Subsection 77(1) provides that “the jurisdiction of The Regional Municipality of Peel over water and sewage public utilities is transferred to the City of Mississauga, the City of Brampton and the Town of Caledon within their geographic areas” on the earlier of: (a) a date prescribed by the Minister, or (b) January 1, 2029.

New subsection 77(2) prohibits the reverse transfer: “Despite section 189, The Regional Municipality of Peel shall not pass a by-law to transfer jurisdiction over water and sewage public utilities from the City of Mississauga, the City of Brampton or the Town of Caledon to The Regional Municipality of Peel.”

Subsection 77(3) grants the Minister regulation-making authority to prescribe a transfer date for purposes of clause 77(1)(a), enabling the Minister to accelerate the transfer if desired.

Co-ordination with Water and Wastewater Public Corporations Act

The transfer of jurisdiction in Schedule 7 is closely co-ordinated with Schedule 16 of Bill 60, which enacts the new Water and Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025, creating a legislative framework for the Minister to designate corporations to provide water and sewage services on behalf of lower-tier municipalities.

Under the new Water and Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025, the Minister may make regulations designating a corporation incorporated under the Business Corporations Act as a “water and wastewater public corporation” and requiring prescribed municipalities to deliver services exclusively through such a corporation. The legislation provides broad Ministerial authority to regulate governance, share structure, rate-setting and operational matters.

The Municipal & Land Use Planning Group at Aird & Berlis LLP will continue to monitor the rollout of Bill 60 and the ERO consultations. If you have questions or require assistance navigating these changes, please contact the authors or a member of the group.